Do Christian Men Have To Be Circumcised?

Introduction

In the Tanakh, what most Christians call the “Old Testament”, there are many laws that were given to the Jews, many of which were transferred over to Christianity, but some laws were not.

It is a matter of debate in some Christian circles, over whether Christians are bound to the “entire” old Jewish Law, including holy days, kosher diet, types of clothing, etc.

This also includes the subject of male circumcision. The act of removing the foreskin from a man’s genitals.

This act, in the Old Testament, was a symbol of God’s Covenant between Him and his people, and was an outward sign of a “circumcision of the heart”.

• “God also said to Abraham, ‘You must keep My covenant—you and your descendants in the generations after you. This is My covenant with you and your descendants after you, which you are to keep: Every male among you must be circumcised. You are to circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and this will be a sign of the covenant between Me and you‘”. – Genesis 17:9-11
• YHWH your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, and you will love Him with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. – Deuteronomy 30:6

But are Christians bound to this law today?

Scriptural Examination

Some Christians would hold to the opinion that Christians today have to be circumcised, just like the Jews were.

They reason on the basis that:

1. Yeshua was circumcised
2. Yeshua said he didn’t come to abolish the Law
3. Paul circumcised Timothy
4. Paul was told to prove the rumours about him preaching against circumcising as wrong
5. Circumcision of the flesh was an “eternal sign” of the Covenant

These reasons are founded in the following scriptures:

• “Whether they are born in your household or purchased, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh will be an everlasting covenant.” – Genesis 17:13
• “When the eight days until his circumcision had passed, he was named Yeshua, the name the angel had given him before He had been conceived”. – Luke 2:21
• “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill”. – Matthew 5:17
• “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. – Acts 16:3
• “Then they said to Paul, ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the Law. But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs… Therefore do what we advise you… Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the Law‘”. – Acts 21:20-21, 24

These appear to be the only scriptures those adhering to circumcision would refer to.

On the contrary, however, there are many scriptures that can be used to argue against the notion that Christians have to be circumcised.

• “Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers; ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved‘…. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said; ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses‘…. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them… ‘Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Yeshua that we are saved, just as they are… It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” – Acts 15:1, 5, 7, 10-11, 19-20
• “And you have been made complete in [the] Anointed, who is the head over every ruler and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by [the] Anointed [One], and not by human hands“. – Colossians 2:10-11
• “Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)“. – Ephesians 2:11 
• Circumcision has value if you observe the Law, but if you break the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. If a man who is not circumcised keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? The one who is physically uncircumcised yet keeps the Law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a Lawbreaker. A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise does not come from men, but from God. – Romans 2:25-29
• In what context was it credited? Was it after his circumcision, or before? It was not after, but before. And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but are not circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.… – Romans 4:10-12
• Regardless, each one should lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is what I prescribe in all the congregations. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man still uncircumcised when called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commandments is what counts. – 1 Corinthians 7:17-19 
• It is for freedom that [the] Anointed has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be encumbered once more by a yoke of slavery. Take notice: I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, [the] Anointed [One] will be of no value to you at all. Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Law. You who are trying to be justified by the Law have been severed from [the] Anointed; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the hope of righteousness. For in [the] Anointed Yeshua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love. You were running so well. Who has obstructed you from obeying the truth? Such persuasion does not come from the One who calls you. A little leaven works through the whole batch of dough. I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is troubling you will bear the judgment, whoever he may be. Now, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those who are agitating you, I wish they would proceed to emasculate themselves!” – Galatians 5:1-12
• “Yet, even though Titus (who was with me) was a Greek, they didn’t force him to get circumcised then. However, they did bring in some false brothers who looked down on the freedom we have in the Anointed Yeshua, and who wanted to make us their slaves. But we didn’t give in to them, not even for an instant, so that the truth of the good news might continue among you!”. – Galatians 2:3-5

As we see here, there are many scriptures which speak directly against circumcising. So then, is there a contradiction? Were the Apostles refusing to follow Yeshua? Or are there alternative explanations?

Those who support the notion of circumcision, will dogmatically cling to the notion that the “Law” was never undone, based on Yeshua’s words. As we have to remember, there isn’t a single verse telling us “those following Yeshua must be circumcised”. Therefore, the Old Testament really is their only source of authority in this respect.

Because of this, there have been attempts at explaining the true meaning of these texts by those who do not think it refers to the ending of the Law of circumcising.

“Circumcision” or “Jewishness”?

Those who support the doctrine of circumcision, will attempt to explain the nature of these verses, as a reference, not to the act of circumcising, but rather, “becoming a Jew”. Hence, their argument is, that it is either about “nationalism” or the “Pharisaical laws” that were added to the Mosaic Law, and that what the Apostles really mean is that Gentiles should not “become Jews” or follow “Pharisaical Judaism”, that the phrase “circumcised” and “uncircumcised” means “Jew and Gentile”.

Hence, they would argue that there is no statement in the New Testament which frees us from the practice of physical circumcision.

If we take these assertions at their word, that this to be true the meaning, then our scriptures would read like this:

• “Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers; ‘Unless you are [made] Jews/Pharisees, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved‘…. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said; ‘The Gentiles must be [made] Jews/Pharisees and required to keep the Law of Moses‘…. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them… ‘Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Yeshua that we are saved, just as they are… It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” – Acts 15:1, 5, 7, 10-11, 19-20
• “And you have been made complete in [the] Anointed, who is the head over every ruler and authority. In him you were also [made] Jewish/Pharisees, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the [becoming] Jewish/a Pharisee performed by [the] Anointed [One], and not by human hands“. – Colossians 2:10-11
• “Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called Gentiles by the so-called Jews/Pharisees (that done in the body by human hands)“. – Ephesians 2:11 
• Jewishness/Pharisaicalism has value if you observe the Law, but if you break the Law, your Jewishness/Pharisaicalism has become Gentileness. If a man who is not a Jew/Pharisee keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his non-Jewishness/Pharisaicalism be regarded as Jewishness/Pharisaicalism? The one who is physically not a Jew/Pharisee yet keeps the Law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and Jewishness/Pharisaicalism, are a Lawbreaker. A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is Jewishness/Pharisaicalism only outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and Jewishness/Pharisaicalism is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise does not come from men, but from God. – Romans 2:25-29
• In what context was it credited? Was it after his Jewishness/Pharisaicalism, or before? It was not after, but before. And he received the sign of Jewishness/Pharisaicalism as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still a Gentile. So then, he is the father of all who believe but are not Jews/Pharisees, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the Jews/Pharisees who not only are Jewish/Pharisees, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was Jewish.… – Romans 4:10-12
• Regardless, each one should lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is what I prescribe in all the congregations. Was a man already a Jew/Pharisee when he was called? He should not become a Gentile. Was a man still a Gentile when called? He should not be Jewish/Pharisee. Jew/Pharisee is nothing and Gentile is nothing. Keeping God’s commandments is what counts. – 1 Corinthians 7:17-19 
• It is for freedom that [the] Anointed has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be encumbered once more by a yoke of slavery. Take notice: I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be Jewish/Pharisees, [the] Anointed [One] will be of no value to you at all. Again I testify to every man who gets himself [to become] Jewish/a Pharisee that he is obligated to obey the whole Law. You who are trying to be justified by the Law have been severed from [the] Anointed; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the hope of righteousness. For in [the] Anointed Yeshua neither [being a] Jew/Pharisee nor Gentile has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love. You were running so well. Who has obstructed you from obeying the truth? Such persuasion does not come from the One who calls you. A little leaven works through the whole batch of dough. I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is troubling you will bear the judgment, whoever he may be. Now, brothers, if I am still preaching Judaism/Pharisaicalism, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those who are agitating you, I wish they would proceed to emasculate themselves!” – Galatians 5:1-12
• “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and [made] him Jewish/a Pharisee because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. – Acts 16:3
• “Yet, even though Titus (who was with me) was a Greek, they didn’t force him to [become] Jewish/a Pharisee then. However, they did bring in some false brothers who looked down on the freedom we have in the Anointed Yeshua, and who wanted to make us their slaves. But we didn’t give in to them, not even for an instant, so that the truth of the good news might continue among you!”. – Galatians 2:3-5
• “Then they said to Paul, ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the Law. But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to [convert] their children [to] Judaism/Pharisaicalism or observe our customs… Therefore do what we advise you… Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the Law‘”. – Acts 21:20-21, 24

As we can see, applying this logic, some verses can still make sense, as we know Gentile (non-Jewish) Christians are “spiritual Jews” being grafted into the natural branches, becoming one with them (Romans 11).

However, other verses don’t make any sense at all, and we end up with double phrases and contradictions. Let’s take a closer look at them:

Romans 2

“A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is Jewishness/Circumcision/Pharisaicalism only outward and physical“.

Clearly, this sentence makes no sense in this context for it makes Paul repeat himself, and so the term “circumcised” should be taken literally. If then, we read this in the natural rendition; “a man is not a Jew because he is circumcised, a Gentile will be considered a Jew because he is circumcised on the inside”.

What is also interesting here is that Paul says “if an uncircumcised man keeps the Law, he is better than a circumcised Jew”, which can be a strong implication that Paul us saying being physically circumcised is no longer a requirement of the Law, but that it is now only a matter of the heart.

Still, one might argue that because Paul says circumcision is not “only” a physical matter, that he might be saying Christians have to be circumcised, but also have to be “circumcised in heart” along with it, or it means nothing, just as an ethnic Jew who is cirumcised means nothing if he disobeys God. Afterall, Paul does say a Gentile is more of a Jew, than a Jew is, for “obeying the Law”, which could be argued to mean “the Mosaic Law” and all its statues. However, examining verse 14, we gain this vital piece of infomation:

• “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law”.

We see here, Paul speaks not only of Gentiles and Jews, but to those “without the Law”. We can argue here that a Gentile without the Law would be by definition, physically uncircumcised, as it the Mosaic Law which demands circumcision.

Of course one might point to Paul’s phrase “they do by nature what the Law requires” as if to possibly imply that these Gentiles through faith, though having no knowledge of the Mosaic Law, physically circumcise themselves… however, the overall context and wording of Paul doesn’t seem to imply such a thing.

We see by full context and Paul’s differentating teminologies, that being “circumcised” doesn’t mean “Jewish”, lest we make him speak an unnatural double phrase

It would rather seem that Paul is saying Gentiles “follow the Law better than circumcised Jews” whilst “not even having the Law themselves, and being physically uncircumcised”. Hence we are being given strong indication here, that being circumcised, as well as abiding by Mosiac Torah, are not Christian requirements.

This as a whole reveals the full meaning of; “The one who is physically uncircumcised yet keeps the Law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker”.

That Gentiles are fulfilling the Law, in the true spiritual sense. They are keeping the “meaning” of the Law. Despite being physically uncircumcised Gentiles, they are more “Jewish” than any fully circumcised Mosaic Law abiding Jew ever would be, due to their heart condition.

This tells us a Gentile man can be considered righteous in accordance to God’s Laws and prinicbles, without being physically circumcised.

Romans 4

“…he is the father of all who believe but are not Jews/Pharisees/circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the Jews/Pharisees/circumcised who not only are Jewish/Pharisees/circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was Jewish/circumcised.…

Examing this verse could mean several things if we claim cirumcision means to be Jewish.

Firstly, it would be calling Abraham a non-Jew, a Gentile, before he “becomes a Jew”, and that he was “approved” by God before his “Jewishness”.

But what does this mean? The physical act of circumcision? Following the Mosaic Law? Being an ethnic Jew?

If the physical act, we are being told God approved of Abraham long before he cut his flesh, by which Paul is telling us because of this, God hence aproves of those who are both uncircumcised and those who are.

If however it means “becoming a Jew”, what does this mean? That he changed his ethnicity? That’s not physically possible. That he became an Israelite? But the Hebrews were not a nation until after the Exodus. Perhaps then it means following the Law? But then this would mean God approved of Abraham before he “followed the Law”, and hence justifies others who do not follow the Law, and the Law was not even forumlated until after the Exodus, so he cannot said to have been following the Law after any certain time either, and certainly not Pharisaicalism.

This conundrum is troublesome for Torah abiding circumcising Christians, because we’re being told that either way, God approves of those uncircumcised, or those who do not follow the Law (of which would include circumcision).

To avoid those things, it would have to mean “becoming a Jew” and being a “former Gentile”. One could argue this in that he was the “beginning” of the Jews, and thus both Jew and Gentile are approved by God, because Abraham was approved before he was “Jewish”, and thus is the father of both, by means of the New Covenant.

Thus, we can certainly make a case that it does speak of the approval of ethnic Jews and Gentiles, but at the same time we are being told God approved of Abraham long before he was either Jewish, or circumcised, and in this case we can also make a case that Paul is saying God approves of people who are not physically circumcised through their faith. We don’t see any indication here that it means Gentiles have to either become Jews, or circumcise themselves. As we see in Genesis, circumcision was merely the “sign” of the Covenant God made due to Abraham’s faith, but was not the means or moral fulfilment of it.

Ephesians 2

Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called Gentiles/uncircumcised by the so-called Jews/Pharisees/circumcised (that done in the body by human hands)”

In this verse, we see Paul call Gentiles true Jews, through their faith in Yeshua, as opposed to being “uncircumcised” or “non-Jewish” if we are to apply this logic, by Jews by what Paul calls “so-called”, by means of “human hands”.

We see here, a clear reference to the physical act of being circumcised. In comparison he calls Gentiles true people of God, in comparison to an act which Paul calls a “so-called” circumcision, which is only done by hands”.

Now this doesn’t tell us if these Gentiles are physically circumcised or not, but it does tell us again that physical circumcision means nothing if a Jew’s heart is not inclined toward God, just as he did in Romans 2. Therefore, we don’t gain any true clarity here.

But what we can be certain of, is that it has nothing to do with Pharisees.

1 Corinthians 7

“Was a man already a Jew/Pharisee/circumcised when he was called? He should not become a Gentile/circimcised. Was a man still a Gentile/circumcised when called? He should not be Jewish/Pharisee/circumcised. Jew/Pharisee/circumcision is nothing and Gentile/uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commandments is what counts“.

Again, we see here, a comparison that could be argued to be speaking about being Jewish and Gentile meaning nothing at all. That a Jew should not seek to be a Gentile, and a Gentile should not seek to be a Jew.

If we take this literally as presented, we could argue that Paul is telling Gentiles not to get circumcised, but what makes it an odd statement on the surface is that he tells Jews not to be “uncircumcised”. One might ask; “it is even possible to undo a physical circumcision?” Well, one can’t reattach the foreskin that was cut off, however, there was a historical practice of trying to undo circumcision which began in the Maccabean period, when the Greeks took over Israel.

• “So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.” – 1 Maccabees 1:14-15

During this time, some Jews would try to fit in with the Greeks by having their foreskins stretched in medical procedures of the time, to disguise the fact they had been circumcised. Hence, if this is what Paul referred to, then it’s clear he’s instructing his audiences to physically remain as they were when called, circumcused or uncircumsiced, solidifying the fact that a Christian is not required to be cut.

If it’s referring to Judaism, however, then of course, this would be a reference to the Mosaic Law, and therefore, Paul could very well be saying “if you follow the Mosaic Law as a Jew when called by Yeshua, keep doing that, but if you’re a Gentile outside the Mosaic Law, don’t bother trying to follow it, it’s not imporant”. And if this is the case, then the Mosaic Law, which is the only direct reference one will find a command to be physically circumcised, becomes moot in this case.

Alternatively, we might argue that Paul speaks of “joining the nation of Israel”, but this really wouldn’t seem to have much meaning to it at all. There is no reason I can think of why a Christian Gentile would think “I want to move to Jerusalem and become Jewish”, just as much as it would seem strange that a Jewish Torah abiding Christian would want to say “I want to abandon my culture and become a Gentile”. The true impact of what Paul refers to would appear not be the mere location of where one lived, but his or her “lifestyle”.

This makes even less sense if we claim Paul was speaking of Pharisaicalism, as he would be encourging Jews to “remain as Pharisees”.

Hence, it would make the most sense to me, that it’s talking about Law and cultural traditions, and that each person who becomes Christian, should do so based on faith and conscience, accordingly to their personal backgrounds in which they were called, but always in obidence to God’s Laws in the New Testament as given to us by Yeshua and the Apostles, Mosaic Torah or no, in order to retain peace and mutual respect amongst the brothers of different cultural backgrounds, so long as it is not in contradiction with the Gospel.

Hence, we may say we have strong reasoning here, that the Mosaic Law is not a component of the New Covenant, and in turn, physical circumcision is not either.

We are told that “only keeping God’s commandments counts”, which would then lead us to conclude that circumcision is not one of God’s commandments to the uncircumcised or Gentiles in the New Covenant.

Galatians 2

“Yet, even though Titus (who was with me) was a Greek, they didn’t force him to [become] Jewish/a Pharisee/be circumcised then…”

In this passage, we see that Paul refused to circumcise Titus. This here in plain reading shows us that Paul was trying to ‘avoid’ getting a Gentile convert circumcised rather than forcing it upon him. Furtheremore, when other Jews came by under the pretense of being Christians, and began demanding it, he said this was an attempt at “stealing their freedom in Yeshua”.

This then would indicate a very strong notion against the practice. Likewise, if the phrase only meant to “become Jewish”, the same prinicple would apply, as to be Jewish would mean to follow in the statues of the Jewish way of life, including that of physical circumcision. There is not hint that it was merely just the unbiblical and over the top Pharisaical laws being referred to here as “being circumcised”.

Galatians 5

“…I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be Jewish/Pharisees/circumcised, [the] Anointed [One] will be of no value to you at all. Again I testify to every man who gets himself [to become] Jewish/a Pharisee/circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Law… in [the] Anointed Yeshua neither [being a] Jew/Pharisee/circumcision nor Gentile/uncircimcision has any value“.

This passage has very strong connotation against the practice of circumcising.

We see, even if interpreting the phrase “circumcised” to mean “Jewish”, we are told by Paul that the Gentiles should not seek to become Jewish, which as we’ve already covered, makes the most sense if it means to refer to following Judaism and hence the Mosaic Law, as opposed to mere nationalism or Pharisaicalism.

If a Christian by nature had to follow the full Mosaic Law, then this means a Christian by definition would essentially be a Jew, who simply believed in Yeshua as the Messiah. Essentially what modern day Messianic Jews are.

But Paul goes on to say that if that was what he was preaching, then he wouldn’t have been experiencing nearly as much persecution as he had at the hands of the Jews.

Paul goes on to use very strong wording that anyone who seeks, to “circumcise himself” for the sake of the Mosaic Law, or to “become Jewish” (depending on how we want to interpret this phrase here) is actually rejecting the work of Yeshua, and is betraying his faith, and that in turn, Yeshua is “useless” to him, and in turn circumsicion is useless to Yeshua.

(This is not to say that if a man is circumcised for medical reasons that he has rejected Yeshua of course, but the main point Paul makes here, is against the notion of doing so in following the Mosaic Law).

He tells us “if you become circumcised” (or become a Jew), then one is required to follow the “full Mosaic Law”, which he depicts here as “bad” thing as part of the power of his argument. In this respect, we can know for certain, that Paul was not speaking of Pharisaicalism, for being circumcised was not a mere Pharisaical custom, but a practice of the Torah, which he mentions verbatim.

Thus, if Paul is telling us this is ‘not’ what Gentile Christians should be doing, then we have no Apostolic references at all in the rest of the New Testament scriptures, to give us any authority on which to claim physical circumcision is a requirement either.

Acts 16

“Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and [made] him Jewish/a Pharisee/circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek“.

This passage is used by some to prove that because Paul circumcised Timothy, then it must be a Christian requirement. But this assersion lacks context.

First, we must look to the point that when Paul circumcised Timothy, whether that meant he was making him “Jewish” or not, would contradict his words to the Galatians about “not” doing such a thing.

So was Paul being a hypocrite here? We see explained in the verse that he did for the sake of the “the Jews” they were preaching to, as they would not have even listened to Paul or Timothy, if they considered him “unclean”. This reflects the account also at Acts 21. Hence, it was merely an opportunity to open doors. As Paul said “to a Jew I am a Jew, to a Roman, a Roman” (1 Corinthians 9:20).

A second point we should focus on, is that Paul had to take Timothy aside to circumcise him. This means then that when Timothy first converted to Christianity, he was not required to be circimcised, and if it was a Christian requirement, Paul surely would not have taken Timothy along with him if he was proving to be such a bad example of a Christian.

Therefore, we have no evidence here that Christians have to be circumcised, rather, the opposite.

Acts 21

“…But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to [convert] their children [to] Judaism/Pharisaicalism/be circumcised or observe our customs… Therefore do what we advise you… Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the Law”.

Akin to Acts 16, some believe this proves all Christians are Torah abiding, because Paul was instructed to take four men with him to prove the “rumours” that he was going about teaching people not to be circimcised or follow the Mosaic Law, wrong.

However, this assersion lacks appreciation for the finer details. If we read carefully, Paul was accused of telling the “Jews” to not follow the Mosaic Law or circumcise.

• “But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circimcise their children or observe our customs.”

We see here, this was a false assersion, for as we have seen in Paul’s letters, he did no such thing, but told people to “remain as they were as they were called” (1 Corinthians 7:20).

Hence, Paul was being told here to take “four Jews” with him, to assure that he still respected the Jewish customs and national laws, and it was not to try and decieve them about the truth his actions, nor was it to assert a circumcision doctrine, but we see further on, the Apostles reaffirm their earlier decision as seen in Acts 15, in that the Gentiles were only required to not eat meat offered to idols, abstain from blood, and to avoid sexual immorality (Acts 21:25).

Acts 15

“‘The Gentiles must be [made] Jews/Pharisees/circumcised‘… After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them; ‘…No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Yeshua that we are saved, just as they are’… James said… ‘we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God… instead, tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood’.”

Our final reference, Acts 15, akin to the above mentioned scriptures, tells us directly that Gentiles should not be seeking to “become Jews”, or “follow the Law of Moses”.

Peter here tells us, that such a Law was a “yoke even we were unable to bear”. Hardly a compliment or appraisal of the Mosaic Law. Instead, he along with Apostle James says, things should not be be made “difficult” for the Gentiles in regards to such things, including that of circumcision.

It can be confidently said this was not referring to the laws and customs of the Pharisees, for there is a unified theme in this passage, where both the Pharisees and non-Pharisees came marching in demanding the same things in regard to circumsicion and the Law (Acts 15:1, 5), which is why the topic had to be discussed.

We see the end affirmation is that Gentiles merely should avoid idolatry, and the consumption of blood, and is quite similar to the modern day Jewish doctrine of the Noachide Law.

Some of course would argue that verse 21 counters this, where it says:

• “Because [the Laws of] Moses are preached in every city, and read in the synagogues on every Sabbath, and have been for generations”.

The argument put forth is that the commands the Apostles instructed to the Gentiles were only limited to a few things, because they didn’t want to “burden the new converts”, but that over time, they would learn to follow the ‘entire’ Torah of Moses, due to the fact that it was being preached in all the synagogues where Gentiles would gather with fellow believers in Yeshua.

However, we do not see any evidence of this in scripture. As aformenetioned, we see the Apostles were quite adamant on preaching the opposite, even claiming that if a Gentile is circumcised and then follows the whole Law, then Yeshua has become “useless” to him (Galatians 5:2-3), there is no indication in here that the Gentiles should “eventually seek” circumcision.

The argument that the Gentiles would ‘eventually’ learn to practice the entire Law of Moses from the synagogues also would fly in the face contradicting Peter’s first stated reason as to why he argued against the notion, saying; “no, they’ve been saved by grace as we have”.

It may even be possible to thus interpret Acts 15:21 as a reference to the Noachide Law that was preached to Gentiles by the Jews in the synagogues, as such laws were indeed written down by Moses in the book of Genesis 9.

However, the overall context possibly may be a reference to ceremonial laws and religious practices, as opposed to commands in general. For the Apostles did not say “tell the Gentiles not to kill or steal”, which would not have been burdensome commands to include at all.

However, the practices mentioned were all in fact common religious customs practiced in Pagan temples (ie; idolatry, temple prostitution, eating blood of sacrifices), and so in relation to such things, the Gentiles, along with their new Christian faith which was appears to have been free of the Mosaic Law, perhaps were being told that they should cease their Pagan ritual customs of worship also, and such things being in line with the Laws of Moses that the Jews had always known, thus making the Jewish communities amongst whom they lived with, more happy.

Was it Only Paul Who Taught Against Circumcision?

Whilst many would claim “Paul was the only one” who put taught against circumcising and spiritualised the Mosaic law, reading the book of Acts clearly demonstrates this not to be true, for such an instruction began, not with Paul, but with Apostles Peter and James at the Council of Jerusalem:

• “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said; ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised….’ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them… ‘Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Yeshua that we are saved, just as they are… Then after they’d finished speaking, James said; …It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God‘…. after that…. this is what was written by their hands; ‘[From] the Apostles and the older brothers, to those gentile brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Kilikia: We’ve heard that there were some who came from us… And they’ve urged you to make changes in your lives (although we really didn’t tell them to do this)…. through the Holy Spirit, it’s become clear to us that we shouldn’t put any burdens on you other than these necessary things; ‘Stay away from things that are sacrificed to idols, from blood, from strangled [animals], and from sexual immorality“. – Acts 15:5, 7, 10-11, 13, 19, 22-24, 28-29

We see the entire council of Apostles instruct the Gentiles on this matter, of what ‘specific’ ceremonial laws of Moses were to be adhered by, and not only that, they make an appeal to God’s authority in that they claim it was the holy spirit itself which informed them of this.

Thus, if one truly believes that Yeshua did not authorise Christians to no longer be required to follow the Old Law and circumcising, then one would be forced to claim that the Apostles had later become false teachers, and that the likes of Peter, James and Paul lied about being directed by God’s holy spirit in this case.

Understanding Yeshua’s Words and the “Eternal Covenant”

As we have seen there is plenty of evidence against the notion of circumcising accoding to the Apostles, how then are to we understand our Father YHWH’s words in Genesis of the Eternal Covenant? And how are we to understand Yeshua’s words of not abolishing the Law?

First, we should look to our Father’s words in regard to the Covenants.

• “It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares YHWH. This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares YHWH. “I will put my Law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people”. – Jeremiah 31:32
• “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away”. – Hebrews 8:13

We see here, God tells us that his “New Covenant” would not be like his Old Covenant as made with the Israelites. Already this is giving us precedent to prove that there would be “changes” made to God’s Law as given to his people.

But in that case, how can we say the Old Law was “eternal”? There are several explanations.

1. The word “eternal” is a flawed translation
2. The Law is eternal only to the Israelites
3. The Law is eternal, but is not defined by the physical act

Our first option is to consider that the Hebrew word used for “eternal” (as is translated in most modern Bibles), “olam (עוֹלָם)”, doesn’t always mean “eternal”, but can mean “though the ages”, or simply “a long time”.

Olam:
long duration, antiquity, futurity – Strong’s Concordance

Another explanation, which has basis in the New Testament, is that this eternal physical Law was to fleshly Jews only. However, this would make a strange seperation between Jew and Gentile, as the scriptures say we become “one people”, and “one flock”, and Peter himself was said to have “lived like a Gentile” (Galatians 2:14).

The third explanation, is that the Law is eternal, but has become spiritualised, and is not defined by the physical act of circumcising. A clue to this may actually be seen in the verse at Genesis itself.

• Whether they are born in your household or purchased, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh will be an everlasting covenant.” – Genesis 17:13

What this might mean is, it was not the “flesh” or “circumcision” that was eternal, but the thing the circumcising itself represented was eternal, the “Covenant”. Which now has become to be purely expressed by a circimcising of the heart via faith (Jeremiah 4:4), and not an “outward show”.

Yeshua’s words then on the “fulfilment of the Law”, may appear to mean he did not come to end the Law, but to “fulfill its purpose”, that purpose being to bring about the Messiah into the world to die for our sins, teach us of our sinful nature, and pave the way for a New Covenant of Salvation, as may have been the meaning of his pronouncment on the cross of the scriptures being “finished and accomplished”:

• “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…”. – Matthew 5:17-19
• “After this, Yeshua, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scriptures might be fulfilled… he said, ‘It is finished!’ And bowing his head, he gave up his breath”. – John 19:28, 30
• “…wiping away the handwritten Decrees that held you down and oppressed you. He lifted them out of the way and nailed them on to the starous… Therefore, don’t allow anyone to judge you over [what you] eat or drink, or over festivals such as the New Moons or Sabbaths”. – Colossians 2:14, 16

“πληρόω
Definition: to make full, to complete
Usage: I fill, fulfill, complete”. – Strong’s Concordance

Conclusion

As we can see, according to the teachings of Yeshua’s Apostles, there is ample proof that Gentile Christians do not have to be circumcised, and should not seek to be in order to try and follow the Mosaic Law.

However, if on the contrary, Yeshua did teach that all of his followers, Jew and Gentile, must follow the complete Mosaic Law until the end of time including circumcision (Matthew 5:17-19), then in this stead, we would have to pronunce the likes of Peter, James, Luke and Paul to be false teachers for telling the Gentiles otherwise. In this respect, an individual must make up his or her own mind, in accordance with prayer and their conscience….

But we must bear in mind carefully, that we are not opposing the holy spirit of God, which these Apostles claimed gave them the authority to say these things (Acts 15:28).

However, if you are a Jew who has come to believe Yeshua is the Messiah, scripture makes clear that you are still in your rights to abide by the Mosaic customs if you wish (Acts 21:24), only, remember that it is not the true means of your salvation, but it is the blood of Yeshua the Anointed One, that our sins have been ransomed, and our lives truly saved via God’s grace (Acts 15:11, Romans 7:7-25, Romans 11:6, 1 Corinthians 7:19-20).